If she has been disruptive at school previously, then I can see where the principal is scared of the woman and took the actions that she did. I don't like it necessarily, but understand it. After all, the principal has echoed a sentiment that we have echoed here numerous times about folks who had exhibited histories of being a problem who then did harm to others. The proclamations and queries get made about why nothing was done beforehand. This principal is making that beforehand effort. She is being proactive relative to what she sees as a specific possible threat.

Tom Servo wrote

Quote:

I suggest we reserve judgement on this until more facts come to light.

Sounds like a good idea. We don't know all the facts yet, so before we make a martyr out of her, maybe we should get all the facts first.

DNS makes a great point - everyone screams about seeing the signs after the fact, but this is what playing it safe looks like.

After serving as a safety/security coordinator I understand the importance of being proactive. However, being proactive should be based on behavior and not simply the fact that someone owns a gun or has a weapons license. As previously mentioned the school district does not seem to feel she presents any threat based on the fact that they’ve allowed her back into the classroom.

I want to be careful not to make any definitive statements about this specific case, but the general trend to demonize someone for simply owning a gun is troubling.

__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman

well.. I'm not sure if it is different where she is, but in Missouri I'm pretty sure you cannot carry in a school or on the grounds. If the facebook post was more than a simple "I got my permit" and more of a " I carry everywhere" or something similar then the principal at that point would have known this may have been a problem. May have been forced to say something because she knew.

It doesn't sound like the principal and parents thought the gun thing was in a vacuum. And once the air was cleared the Super may have decided that the Principal's instincts proved incorrect, but her response was appropriate given what she knew.

After the embarrassment, the mom may have wanted to avoid the Principal and PTO, even if the air had been cleared by the Super.

I don't think this is a "gun thing". The CCW was only one of several factors that made people at the school feel threatened.

I don't think this is a "gun thing". The CCW was only one of several factors that made people at the school feel threatened.

Upon what basis do you make this conclusion? That she posted a picture of it?

__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.

That the CCW was only one of several things that made the PTO and Principal nervous enough to bar the Mom for school safety. Firearms are one factor, but they didn't have to be because the Mom's behavior combined with some other factor may have also been enough to prompt the reaction.

"I'd punch that guy in the face if I was there" is another kind of Facebook post that might have prompted the same reaction that Mom is not someone to take a chance on when kids are involved.

Right, not just a gun thing. The gun aspect did appear to be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back, but it wasn't the sole issue.

And you are right, it is what being proactive can very much look like. Everyone screams AFTER THE FACT when things go wrong about why people didn't stop a lunatic beforehand. It is sketchy to be able to do this and to always knowingly be right as it involves prognostication.

But this also resounds with another one of our favorite sayings that we are very two-faced about as well. "It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6." We think this saying makes great sense when we agree with the actions of the person who opts to act and take a stand in response to a perceived risk, but we are also apt to crucify them in text if we don't agree with their actions. "It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" is only meaningful/valid when we agree with what went on.

We like all our cutesy mottos, but in reality, many often have poor relevance or application to real life. They just sound good.

Quote:

As previously mentioned the school district does not seem to feel she presents any threat based on the fact that they’ve allowed her back into the classroom.

Right, they reviewed the situation. Sounds like standard protocol for any such action that goes high vis. No reports of wrongdoing on the part of the principal who like Mount, was acting fully within the accord of the law.

__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011

I don't buy the "not just a gun thing" argument that a CCL coupled with whatever other perceived threats there were makes for a greater threat.
The fact that she obtained a CCL should have been an indication that she was NOT a threat.

As the police officer at our CCW class said, "When I pull you over and run your plate, and it comes back that you are a CCW holder, (and I verfiy its you behind the wheel) I can breath a sigh of relief because I know you won't be a problem.

How many lunatics who shoot up schools obtain a CCL or CCW before doing so?

Again, this didn't happen just because of the CCL post. It sounds like that was just another unsettling thing she did. If it hadn't been that, it would have been something else.

That's why this isn't just a gun thing. If this lady was everyone's buddy the CCL post wouldn't have caused this reaction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy

Quote:

That's why this isn't just a gun thing.

Right, not just a gun thing. The gun aspect did appear to be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back, but it wasn't the sole issue.

There's nothing in any news report I've read to suggest that Ms. Mount had done anything "unsettling." Unless either of you has some evidence to back up these statements, they're just unsupported allegations that "she must have been up to something," and we don't do those here.

__________________"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)

None of us have any idea exactly what was meant by “disruptive” if she acted in an inappropriate manner ban her from campus for the behavior itself not for being a legal gun owner. This all plays into the false stereotype that gun owners are violent hotheads that will snap and open fire during any confrontation.

__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman

All I know of Ms. Mount from her Facebook page is that the lady seems nice and has a passion for cooking. There's no anger directed at anyone. If she was as much of a "disruption" as the school board claimed, I'd expect to see some indication of it on her site. After all, people vent their id with little provocation or moderation there.

Let's ease off the speculation and wait for facts to surface.

__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe

No, not everyone is speculating. Here's the relevant part of the post you referred to by BarryLee:

Quote:

Originally Posted by BarryLee

I’ve attached a link to a video from August TV Channel 6 where the Principal admits that the decision to ban this Mother was based on the Facebook posting. She does state that some other PTO members stated that Ms. Mount had been disruptive, but didn’t offer any examples of threats or violent acts.

I suppose you could say the Principle is simply being proactive, but it concerns me when her main motivation is the Mother being a legal gun owner. Another telling point to consider is that Ms. Mount is not banned from her daughter’s new school within the same district and is allowed to participate in the PTO. The School Superintendent states that they do not anticipate any problems from her.

BarryLee's point is that, based on published information about the case, there doesn't appear to be any reason to think that Ms. Mount was a problem. In the video he linked, the principal, Ms. Davis, was asked if the "no trespass" order was issued because of the Facebook post. She replied, "Yes, it was." The only other specific behavior mentioned was that Ms. Mount "said she wouldn't let anybody bother her daughter." Granted that we don't know the context -- but that hardly seems like an outrageous thing for a parent to say.

Quote:

What is it we don't do, here?

We don't speculate beyond the published facts of a case that's in the news. When you say, in effect, "Well she obviously did something else, or this wouldn't have happened," that is an unsupported allegation. It's fine to offer opinions, but you need to back them up with evidence.

__________________"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)

I worked with a woman who was similar in many ways to this one. I suspect her posting of the CCL on her facebook page was motivated by pride at having accomplished something she felt challenged by.

I have seen some of you in this very topic speak about facebook and social media as if you think it's really different then this very forum when in all fact it is not. In fact, some of you feel "safe" here and say whatever it is you want, your reservations are removed and you speak plainly while you say you would not do this on facebook. I do not use facebook because I feel it is a targeted site, it is targeted and routinely exploited. But for those who build their own facebook pages and have control over who can and can not see and post there, I see how they too can become comfortable and get a feeling that it's theirs, and the people there are friends, and it's sort of safe. At least until something happens like this.

I guess my point is that as long as you are calling the kettle black, you might want to look at the mirror cause this place is no more private then facebook.

Don't believe me, take any really good post with a good collection of somewhat unique keywords and Google them, you will get that post in the search results.

Either she is "disruptive", which is what I referred to as the other factor, or she was not disruptive and whoever misreported that as fact is the one who is speculating.

I base my comments on BOTH reported facts. If either fact is a falsehood then my comments have no bearing. If you don't care for the conclusion I reached from reading and accepting Barry's post as accurate, the fault lies with wherever that inaccuracy came from. Not me.

I am not a journalist and shouldn't be required to fact check other members posts before I respond to them. If Barry's post is factual, I stand behind my assertion that this is likely more than just a reaction to just a Facebook post or her "disruptions" would have never come up.

The main difference is that the majority of posters on forums purposely choose anonymous screen names and don't post pictures of themselves.

That adds a scant layer of anonymity, but it's hardly a shield. IP addresses can be checked, and the information someone posts can be cross referenced.

Many folks will use the same username across several forums, and some will have links to their personal blogs or somesuch in their signature lines. After all, a quick Google search on your username pulls up this personal photo:

In all seriousness, it's a mistake to assume that we're anonymous because we post under a pseudonym.

__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe

Do you think that you are anonymous? That RX-79G is anything but an alias and that only two things prevent people or agencies from knowing your name, address, phone number and what you look like, motivation and capability. Capability is easy, motivation can come in many flavors. Nothing on the Internet is private. It's very structure is similar to broadcast radio because your packets that represent your data transmissions are broadcast out for anyone, with the capability and motivation, to capture and use for whatever purpose they wish.

I take it for granted that the NSA can break 128 bit encryption and has recordings of every phone call in the last ten years.

I also assume that the owners of this website can figure out where my email address goes to.

But I thought we were talking about publicly accessible social media affecting our jobs and life decisions. And I remain confident that the local school board is not going to figure out that I post on a firearms forum or that I'm a Mobile Suit pilot. Any normal civilian background search is not going to connect my real name, SS#, address, phone or drivers license to TFL.

I remain confident that the local school board is not going to figure out that I post on a firearms forum or that I'm a Mobile Suit pilot.

As Lcpiper pointed out, it depends on how motivated they are.

Let's say I've got a problem child. I bark at the school and maybe I make threats. Maybe I handed out flyers with the exact wording as a missive I wrote on a gun board as GunLuvr66. It's not hard to make the connections in many cases.

__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe

Sure, you can give away your anonymity 100 different ways, the most obvious posting under your real name with a picture of yourself, like on Facebook.

With half a brain you can avoid that.

Again, it is almost impossible for a civilian to find out what firearms opinions I have by doing a search by my name or by any of the normal information I'd provide to an employer. That's a major difference from the typical Facebook user.

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.